tungsten vs strobe lighting

I am shooting with a cooke 229mm lens on a 4x5 camera. I am wanting to shoot at f/4.5 to get the softest lens effect as possible. With my Bowens Gemini 500 Pro monolight set at the lowest setting, 15 watts/sec and with a one-stop reducer in the softbox, I can use only one light and must keep it around 8 feet away, otherwise the shot is overexposed. I am shooting ASA 100 at 1/125 sec. at f/4.5. I would like to be able to use fill lights, hair lights, etc. without that overexposing the film. I thought of using tungsten lighting, so I bought a 650 W Tungsten Fresnel, but with that I have to get 3 feet away at the tightest spot to shoot at the same shutter speed and aperture. I don't really want to go below 1/60th sec., and I don't want my models melting under lights so close to them. Also, the tightest spot covers less than 1 foot at that distance. With a 650 W flood, forget about getting enough light. I have done some reading on the internet already. Some suggest going up to a 2000 W Tungsten fresnel or larger, but that would mean I would have to get farther away, which would lead to loss of light intensity. Why the fresnel? I love the look of fresnel spotlights of the old Hollywood portraits of the 20s and 30s. Oh, and I can't afford HMI.

Thanks for reading my lengthy question,

David

What about a ND filter, either on the lens or ND gels over the lights?

Put some filtration on your lens.... you can get a couple of stops or more that way. Your polarizer will get you 2.5-3 stops alone.

Thank you for your repspones. I know there are many photographers that would strongly disagree with me, but I don't like to put filters of any kind on my lenses. I would be happy to put them over the softbox. I'll see what they have online. What about the quality of light from the fresnel spots? Can that be replicated by strobes with a snoot or other attachments?

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Solow

Thank you for your repspones. I know there are many photographers that would strongly disagree with me, but I don't like to put filters of any kind on my lenses. I would be happy to put them over the softbox. I'll see what they have online. What about the quality of light from the fresnel spots? Can that be replicated by strobes with a snoot or other attachments?

David

---

some photographers will gut a fresnel fixture and stick a bare bulb strobe head in there to get similar effects. I think Norman even sells a fresnel head for their packs..or used to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Solow

Thank you for your repspones. I know there are many photographers that would strongly disagree with me, but I don't like to put filters of any kind on my lenses. I would be happy to put them over the softbox. I'll see what they have online. What about the quality of light from the fresnel spots? Can that be replicated by strobes with a snoot or other attachments?

David

---

Some companies made Fresnel spots for their strobes.

If I remember from my long-ago studio portrait days, the main light provided the base exposure. Adding a fill light, hair light, and background light in the 'classic' manner did not affect the overall exposure- they only added light to areas otherwise too dark. We used 400 w/s Photogenic packs back then with 4 outlets...

You know that if you move your main light from 8 feet to 11 feet, you'll drop the light on your subject by a full stop. Do you have room?

You may also try to use a scrim, unless you are looking for hard lighting. Even a white bedsheet hanging in front of your softbox will knock it down (but also diffuse it). If you are using a softbox, then that effect might not be incompatible with your objectives.

If your softbox has a silvered reflector, try covering that with white cloth. Cheap white bedsheets will be a lot cheaper than neutral-density gels.

If you need a spot, use a snoot rather than a Fresnel. It will block unwanted light instead of redirecting it to the spot.

Rick "just some ideas" Denney

Color or B&W? If B&W, do you have an Ikea nearby? Get a handful of these $10 LED lights:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20169658

Or spend $5 more for the clamp version:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/80169636

They might provide the hair light and other highlights you want without any heat and aren't too strong, but strong enough.

The LEDs panels are coming on strong but not quite there yet for me...

Most people have their lights too far away and the light quality they think they are getting just turns into a relatively tiny hard spot, it doesn't matter how much money you spend or how fancy the fixture is....

Instead, practice with an inanimate object (a wig store - mannequin head perhaps?) and put the lights right up to where they look best, which I predict is 1-2 feet away.

You may have to switch out the bulbs to lower wattage ones. Just because a fixture is rated to 650 watts doesn't mean you can't use lower wattage ones.

Roscoe makes theatrical gels that come in colors and densities. Get a couple of 2-3 stop NDs.

I suspect a 250 watt bulb in your fresnel, supplemented with some 100-200 watt bulbs in your other lights, will work nicely and not fry your model.

If you are mimicking the old school and using B&W, then you can mix all sorts of different color temperature bulbs, fancy and cheap fixtures. Note that even Dan Winters will use Home Depot painter's lights on occasion, mixed in with ProFoto and whatever....

I use hot lights and wide open lenses too, although not even close to the precision of a 1930s Hollywood 8x10 photographer. What I do to prevent cooking the model is to turn them off in between.... When you think about it, you can do most of the prep with dimmer or no illumination, then only expose your subjects to a minute or two of intensity. If it is a cool room to begin with, they actually welcome the warmth. If I was doing a fancy Hollywood lighting scheme, I would use a stand-in object instead of the model for most of the "roughing-in".

It's really a shame most photographers get stuck on strobe*. Hot lights are a lovely way to work and it is so much easier to see the light rather than guessing what is going on or chimping a hundred times with your digital (or burning Polaroids $$$) just to do an obvious shot.

*I qualify this though... shoot a group of people and you need strobe, no group is going to be patient enough for hot lights.

Finally, I used to use the Arri Fresnels too and they are nice fixtures. But in practice, I don't see the value in them, or in the Fresnel at all. Try a bare bulb or simple spot and you'll also get nice quality, with very little difference in my opinion. So I'd sell the Arri to some aspirational kid and get a bunch of old Lowel and Mole stuff for cheap if it were me... it's like ProFoto versus White Lightning... not really worth paying 5x more for something that is 99% the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

It's really a shame most photographers get stuck on strobe*. Hot lights are a lovely way to work and it is so much easier to see the light rather than guessing what is going on or chimping a hundred times with your digital (or burning Polaroids $$$) just to do an obvious shot.

*I qualify this though... shoot a group of people and you need strobe, no group is going to be patient enough for hot lights.

---

My old Speedotron heads have modeling lights, and I do admit to using just the modeling lights on occasion with black and white, and when the lighting needed to be really close. But they are too yellow for color, even tungsten-balanced color.

Now, when I need really close lighting to provide that shadowless, enveloping effect, I use a shoot-through umbrella or a translucent scrim, sometimes mounted on its own stand, with the light as far back as needed.

But it's been so freaking long since I've had a use for studio lights that I'm not even sure they would work if I plugged them in.

Rick "who likes the sound of that gigantic capacitor charging up" Denney

With Fresnels you can focus the beam however you want. I have a traditional Arri
setup and absolutely love it for 8x10 portraiture. These kinds of lights were often used
for that classic look in the movies of the 1930's and 40's, right up to the advent of
color movies. They can create crisp firm-edge shadows, the Karsh look, or can be used
in conjunction with diffusers and reflectors for a highly controllable softbox effect.
But they are "hot" lights, so you want a comfortable room which isn't unduly warm to begin with. Fresnel lighting is quite a bit more expensive than ordinary hot lights, but
not as bad as some pro flash boxes.

Personally, I'd use a scrim, diffusion sheet or neutral density with your Bowens flash. Bright tungsten lights can be very difficult on models, especially non-professional ones. As someone has already mentioned, you can put up a diffusing fabric a few feet from your model and shoot your soft box light though it, backing the softbox up to get the level that you want. You could also put neutral density Rosco filter on the front of the soft box, or you could put another couple of layers of diffusing fabric on the front. You can get fabric that works very well for this at a fabric store. Another option would be to bounce the light (probably without the soft box) into a v-flat made of two big pieces of Gatorboard. (We used 4x8 sheets in the studio, but they don't have to be that big.) You could use slower film. ... You have a whole bunch of choices.

can you just use the modeling light in your monoblocks ?
that is what i do, and the longish exposure gives a nice feel to the portrait.
if you can pick up some lowel " L-Lights " they are dirt cheap and great to do portraits with as well.

If you are looking for a Fresnel to use with strobe, Walimex (a German company that does business on eBay) makes a "universal" Fresnel (big box with the glass, and an adapter ring for the appropriate strobe head connector). They're considerably cheaper than OEM ones - I got mine for under $500 USD including 2-day FedEx shipping from Germany. A Bowens one that fit my strobes was selling used for almost $1K. I have no commercial affiliation with Walimex and get no benefit from this posting. Just wanted to share the economy option for getting a focusable Fresnel for strobes.

Thank you for all your fantastic suggestions. I will start to experiment with them today. I am particularly fond of cheap and low tech solutions but am not averse to using higher tech equipment, if it is called for. I am fortunate in having a very patient model, my wife. She is not a professional model, nor are the folks I plan to shoot. Having them comfortable with the lighting is essential, whether hot lights or strobes.

My studio is in an old barn, I cool it with a large A/C window unit (very low tech). The temperature never gets below 80 degrees in the summer, so hot lights may be more of a problem this time of year. As I said, I will experiment. Turning the lights off between shots is a great idea.

I was just a beginner 30 years ago, when I went to school for photography. After so long a hiatus from LF and studio lighting, I am an only-slightly-more-knowledgeable beginner today and am truly grateful for your sharing your knowledge with me.

Thanks again,
David

I assume you are shooting B&W. If not and you are mixing lights with differient color temperature and will need to get color correction filters from a pro camera source to cover your lights.

Thanks everyone,

I kept the fresnels and had some good results with a couple of 650 watt tungstens and some foam core for some fill. Plus I got a couple of old Lowel lights (1000 watt). I'll continue to explore.

That reminds me of my first painting teacher in college who "corrected" me in a rather embarrassing way. I said that I was experimenting in my paintings. He said, "Mr. Solow, experimentation implies at least a rudimentary knowledge base. You have none. You (pause) are exploring." I grew to love this teacher. Every time he came over to critique my work, he would begin by saying, "Of course your realize, Mr. Solow, this painting is a piece of shit." After four years of that, I no longer relied on others' approval of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Solow

Thank you for your repspones. I know there are many photographers that would strongly disagree with me, but I don't like to put filters of any kind on my lenses. I would be happy to put them over the softbox. I'll see what they have online. What about the quality of light from the fresnel spots? Can that be replicated by strobes with a snoot or other attachments?

David

---

I have a very good friend who feels as you do about using filters on his lenses. He feels that filters will make his images softer. I kind of understand his point of view since he is a landscape photographer and mostly uses a Hasselblad Xpan which is a 35mm camera.

You are shooting portraits with a 4x5 camera. I don't know how large you are enlarging your images or if you are shooting men or women. How sharp are you wanting your images? I shot a group shot of my wife with her son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter with a Mamiya RZ67 with 110mm lens and Novetron Strobes and I caught hell from my wife because the images were razor sharp.

Neutral density filters on your lens may very slightly soften the image. I wouldn't think enough to notice. Most Hasselblad owners use softar filters when shooting women because the Zeiss lenses are too sharp. Of course I'm talking about medium format and blowing up to 8x10 and 11x14 sizes.

I think that neutral density filters on your lenses would be fine and quite a bit cheaper than ones on your strobes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Gales

How sharp are you wanting your images?

---

If I can't count the hairs on the bacteria crawling across her face, then it's not sharp enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Hughes

If I can't count the hairs on the bacteria crawling across her face, then it's not sharp enough.

---

Well, you really answered my question! :D

I really love my Arri fresnel system, along with my various Lowell hotlights. I have
a variety of simple diffusers and reflectors, and neutral density gels for the lights
themselves. I like to keep things simple. An especially nice setup for traditional 8X10
studio portraiture etc. But's its not very practical for squirmy kids or pets - that's when I switch to a Nikon and available light. Never did care much for flash of any kind.
Hot lights are of course hot, so it helps that I live and work in a mild climate. Nobody
has air conditioning around here on the coast.

Although I have a variety of studio strobe units, I rarely use them as such. It is more normal for me to use the modeling lights through a soft box or boxes to make the negative. This is essentially always true for portraits and nudes.

Alan,
In response to your question, I don't mind the softness with portraits of women. In fact, all of them I've worked with so far prefer it. I don't mind using a ND filter in those situations. I use a Cooke 229mm portrait lens wide open at f/4.5, and adjust my studio lighting accordingly. With such a shallow depth of field, only a small part of the portrait is in focus. For other portraits, I want that sharp focus to see pores, hairs, etc., if not on the bacteria then at least on the sitter.

Jim,

Thanks for sharing your experience. I have been using my tungsten lighting in LF for portraits pretty much exclusively, but I am going to explore the strobes as well.

David

David,

Thanks for the additional information. I thought your first response was hilarious. My wife said that she didn't want you taking her portrait! :)

Alan

My Arris came with scrims (metal screen type) that fit over the lights. You could do something similar with the monolights and place a screen over the head. Heat shouldn't be to much of an issue so another option would be some Lee ND material over the head. Much cheaper than filtering the entire softbox. You could also mix tungsten and flash with addition of a CTO or half CTO over the head.

Be very careful putting a meltable/flammable item around the flash tube. Modeling lights can produce a lot of heat. Using metal mesh, such as aluminum window screening, would be much safer. You can always use multiple layers if need be.

i haven't read all the replies, but tough spun and silks on your reflector.

:rolleyes: Let me say at the outset I'm certainly no expert, which is why I keep it as simple as possible. I use photofloods in hardware store reflectors. When I use ortho film I use blue bulbs. With panchro emulsions you can use either blue or white. Blue is more like sunlight, temperature wise. While I've never used a dimmer, that seems like a good idea, as the bulbs last longer, and the model is not sweltering when you turn the "heat" on. I'll have to see if I can find a dimmer that can handle the watts. One of the advantages of using photofloods is all you need is a reflective meter. I use a Weston Master ll.

David there are reducing get filters for lights. But what you can do in a pinch - you can turn softbox into strip box, cutting its effective surface down by using something as simple as cardboard slices. Half of surface out - one stop down. Or just buy yourself slower film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by premortho

:rolleyes: Let me say at the outset I'm certainly no expert, which is why I keep it as simple as possible. I use photofloods in hardware store reflectors. When I use ortho film I use blue bulbs. With panchro emulsions you can use either blue or white. Blue is more like sunlight, temperature wise. While I've never used a dimmer, that seems like a good idea, as the bulbs last longer, and the model is not sweltering when you turn the "heat" on. I'll have to see if I can find a dimmer that can handle the watts. One of the advantages of using photofloods is all you need is a reflective meter. I use a Weston Master ll.

---

Remember that as you dim an incandescent lamp the peak wavelength gets longer (ie the light gets redder) so you are probably reducing the actinic efficiency of the lamp and thus you are likely to get less actinic power for a given amount of heat - the 'actinic watts' per electrical watt* generally goes down, particularly with ortho film. It's usually better to run the lamps as hot as they are designed for, which is why the good old P1 photofloods have a colour temperature of 3400 K (tungsten Type A) and a short, but relatively efficient (for that type of incandescent) life.


*lumens per watt isn't appropriate for films that don't match the eye's spectral response - which is just about every B&W film - but it is a guide in the absence of anything else.

Best,
Helen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Solow

I am shooting with a cooke 229mm lens on a 4x5 camera. I am wanting to shoot at f/4.5 to get the softest lens effect as possible. With my Bowens Gemini 500 Pro monolight set at the lowest setting, 15 watts/sec and with a one-stop reducer in the softbox, I can use only one light and must keep it around 8 feet away, otherwise the shot is overexposed. I am shooting ASA 100 at 1/125 sec. at f/4.5. I would like to be able to use fill lights, hair lights, etc. without that overexposing the film. I thought of using tungsten lighting, so I bought a 650 W Tungsten Fresnel, but with that I have to get 3 feet away at the tightest spot to shoot at the same shutter speed and aperture. I don't really want to go below 1/60th sec., and I don't want my models melting under lights so close to them. Also, the tightest spot covers less than 1 foot at that distance. With a 650 W flood, forget about getting enough light. I have done some reading on the internet already. Some suggest going up to a 2000 W Tungsten fresnel or larger, but that would mean I would have to get farther away, which would lead to loss of light intensity. Why the fresnel? I love the look of fresnel spotlights of the old Hollywood portraits of the 20s and 30s. Oh, and I can't afford HMI.

Thanks for reading my lengthy question,

David

---

Hi David,

I'm in a similar situation -- making portraits of my wife in a makeshift "studio", with makeshift lighting, and I've been shooting mostly at f/4, with exposures around 1/8- 1/15 second with ISO 100 film. Too much light hasn't been my problem. For my main light I use a 23watt fluorescent bulb in a 12" reflector, quite close to my subject. For fill I use a fluorescent desk lamp, with a ring bulb, and one of the IKEA LED lamps linked for an accent light. I try to spill light from my main light on the background, but it's not enough -- I need a lighter background, or another light. Anyway, that's my lo-fi setup.

Since no one has mentioned it, I will -- you could use slower film. It wouldn't be my first choice, because it would mean using Adox/Efke, but it is workable. Below are a a couple examples of my very fledgling results with the above setup -- one with Efke CHS 50 ART, and another with Fuji Acros:

[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/7...b8a441bb_b.jpg Untitled by Jay DeFehr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7129/6...501f0811_b.jpg Untitled by Jay DeFehr, on Flickr[/IMG]

Those are nice shots, Jay. The first one is more 1920's look (The film), The second has that plus-x look from the 1940's. And to answer Helen, I would only use the dimmer for setting up the lighting ratios, then turn up "the heat" for the shot. Now if we are using the same lights, the law of inverse squares apply to lighting so if the first light is at 6 feet and the second is at 12 feet, the second one only delivers 25% as much light on the subject. And you meter only the first lamps intensity, it controls exposure. The second light only fills shadows. But if you use two different types of light, you'll have to figure out the ratios somehow. Too complicated for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Hi David,

I'm in a similar situation -- making portraits of my wife in a makeshift "studio", with makeshift lighting, and I've been shooting mostly at f/4, with exposures around 1/8- 1/15 second with ISO 100 film. Too much light hasn't been my problem. For my main light I use a 23watt fluorescent bulb in a 12" reflector, quite close to my subject. For fill I use a fluorescent desk lamp, with a ring bulb, and one of the IKEA LED lamps linked for an accent light. I try to spill light from my main light on the background, but it's not enough -- I need a lighter background, or another light. Anyway, that's my lo-fi setup.

Since no one has mentioned it, I will -- you could use slower film. It wouldn't be my first choice, because it would mean using Adox/Efke, but it is workable. Below are a a couple examples of my very fledgling results with the above setup -- one with Efke CHS 50 ART, and another with Fuji Acros:

[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/7...b8a441bb_b.jpg Untitled by Jay DeFehr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7129/6...501f0811_b.jpg Untitled by Jay DeFehr, on Flickr[/IMG]

---

Photofloods provide good cheap fun. I run 250 watt ECA's with some household bulbs for hair and background applications. Then I have enough power left in my breaker box to turn on a space heater. Yes you're running at about 1/15th, but with a good model, it doesn't matter too much.

I've been setting up my studio lights to do some copy work, and with two of my Speedotron M11 heads (the big ones), both at six feet pointed into large, plain white umbrellas, I'm getting f/8 at ISO 160. I dialed the head down to 200ws to achieve that. At ISO 100 and a bit more distance, these would work at f4.5. And if you are in a hot light mood, you can just use the modeling lights.

People are just about giving that Brown Line stuff away these days.

Rick "trying to keep a small-format copy lens at optimal aperture for pics of artwork" Denney

Attachment 71585All my lighting is with hot lights, I love being able to see where the light lands in real time... My assortment of lights is so basic and mixed up its embarrassing but what fun.

I have a natural light set up for still life up north, works like a charm, I just need to balance out my solarization exposure time and I am good to go.
Attachment 71584

hang a white hotel towel over the front of the softbox... that would be good for 2 or 3 stops anyway

Hi,
If you have a bowens Gemini 500 set you should have 250W modeling lights in them, so using them at full power fairly close might be an option. The only thing is, you may have to add some gels if you are shooting color, since they are not really daylight balanced.

I phrased it wrong. Turning up the heat is a photographers phrase from my youth. It means either a flash exposure or turning the dimmer on photofloods up all the way for the exposure. Running the lights on 2/3 max to set lighting ratios and sitings makes the bulbs last a lot longer, and doesn't bother the sitter (victum?) while you are doing all of this. When we were ready for an exposure, some one would say "turn on the heat". If you've ever sat under photofloods very long, you'd know what we meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helen Bach

Remember that as you dim an incandescent lamp the peak wavelength gets longer (ie the light gets redder) so you are probably reducing the actinic efficiency of the lamp and thus you are likely to get less actinic power for a given amount of heat - the 'actinic watts' per electrical watt* generally goes down, particularly with ortho film. It's usually better to run the lamps as hot as they are designed for, which is why the good old P1 photofloods have a colour temperature of 3400 K (tungsten Type A) and a short, but relatively efficient (for that type of incandescent) life.


*lumens per watt isn't appropriate for films that don't match the eye's spectral response - which is just about every B&W film - but it is a guide in the absence of anything else.

Best,
Helen

---

Put some diffusion or scrim(s) on your strobes. Use several layers if necessary.

Or as Rick suggested use a shoot-through umbrella. You lose half your light (one stop) regardless of which way you point it.


- Leigh